Abetment of suicide requires clear intent and proximate cause; mere naming of co-accused without proof of instigation is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.

Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. This is an application seeking to quash the First Information Report No. 0109/2017 dated 12.03.2017, registered by the non- applicant No. 1 Police Station Buldhana(City), Buldhana, and further charge-sheet bearing No. 95/2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999, as also, Sessions Case No. 56 of 2017, pending on the file of 8^th Adhoc District Judge -1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, for the above said offences.

3. As per the contentions of the First Information Report which is lodged by one Ramdas Balaji Shingne, who is the father of the deceased, the said deceased namely Bhagyashree was studying in college and was attending the college from 10:30 to 6:00 p.m. daily. On Sunday i.e. on 12.03.2017, when the said daughter did not turn up for taking lunch till the afternoon, the complainant i.e. her father went to the room and found that it was locked from inside. Since there was no response, the door was broken and first informant saw the victim/daughter had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling. Subsequently, it was found that there was suicide note near the chair, which clearly indicated that she was subjected to outraging of modesty by the accused persons including the present applicant, which was the reason for committing suicide. Upon receiving the said information, the Investigating Agency lodged the First Information Report, and consequently, after completion of the investigation charge-sheet came to be filed. It is this First Information Report and the consequent charge-sheet which is challenged in the present application.

4. We have heard Shri R.N. Ghuge, learned Counsel for the applicant, as also, Shri N.H. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1/State.

5. Shri R.N. Ghuge, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that except naming the present applicant along with the other co- accused/students, no specific role has been attributed which is in close proximity of the occurrence of this said incident. He further states that there is no positive or overt act attributed to the present applicant, and therefore, the applicant cannot be said to have instigated or aided or abetted the said crime. It is his submission that in view of the settled law in the matter of abetement of suicide, no offence, much less, for abetting the suicide, is made out, and therefore, he prays for quashing of the First Information Report, and the consequent charge-sheet.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency has recorded statements of informant and other witnesses and the spot panchanama was also conducted. He further submits that the suicide note written by victim was seized and certain other documents were also seized under panchnama, which transpires that offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, as also, the Indian Penal Code are squarely made out. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the application.

7. In the backdrop of these facts, we have appreciated the material on record. As can be seen from the First Information Report in question, the offences complained of are under Sections 306, 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act. As far as Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on following citations :

1. Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371

2. Prabhat Kumar Mishra Alias Prabhat Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2024) 3 SCC 665

3. Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2016 All MR (Cri) 4328

4. Meenabai Deepak Mahale and others Vs. State